Civil-Military Gap in the United States
The civil-military gap in the United States refers to the growing divide between those who have served in the military and the civilian population who have not. This gap has been a concern since the nation's founding, as the framers of the Constitution aimed to ensure civilian control over the military to prevent potential threats from a professional armed force. Since the end of World War II, particularly after the shift to an all-volunteer military in 1973, the gap has widened, leading to distinct differences in culture, beliefs, and attitudes between military personnel and civilians.
Concerns about this divide gained renewed attention in the 1990s after the Cold War, as discussions about defense spending and national security strategy highlighted the disconnect. Researchers like Samuel P. Huntington and Morris Janowitz have debated the implications of this gap, with some arguing that it could hinder military effectiveness and public support. Surveys conducted in recent decades have shown mixed evidence regarding the gap's existence, yet they suggest that a wider civil-military divide may lead to challenges in recruiting, retaining personnel, and maintaining public trust in the armed forces. As of 2015, the military comprised only about 1 percent of the U.S. population, raising ongoing concerns about the principle of civilian oversight of the military in the modern era.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Civil-Military Gap in the United States
Civil-military gap refers to the divide in the United States between those who have served in the military and those who have not. It can also be referred to as the civil-military divide or civilian-military divide. The civil-military gap involves a breach in understanding between service members or veterans and the civilian, nonmilitary community. Although some evidence of the gap has been seen since the 1950s, it became more prevalent in the 1990s after the Cold War ended. There is a fear in the military community that as the gap continues to widen, it could impact the military's effectiveness by reducing support for defense budgets, making it more difficult to recruit quality people to join the armed forces, and by reducing public support for using military force.
Background
Concerns over a civil-military gap have been around since the birth of the United States. The framers of the Constitution divided control over the military between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government and preserved a separate military made up of citizen soldiers to ensure citizens control the military. This was also done to avoid relying on a professional military that the framers knew would be different from, and a threat to, society. Since World War II (1939–1945), there have been two early waves of debate over the civil-military gap beginning in the 1950s and leading to the current debate that continues into the twenty-first century.
The first wave began soon after the end of World War II and lasted until 1973 with the end of the military draft, or conscription. As it became apparent the American military would maintain higher levels of active-duty personnel after World War II, concerns about the differences between civilian and military cultures became a key issue. During this time, researchers focused on defining civil-military relations and learning how civilians actually controlled the military. The era was marked by debate between researchers Samuel P. Huntington and Morris Janowitz. In his book The Soldier and the State (1957), Huntington argued that the civil-military gap was an ideological divide between generally conservative officers and a more liberal civilian society. While Janowitz agreed with some of Huntington's thoughts on the nature of the divide, he disagreed with Huntington's assessment of its influence on military effectiveness. In Janowitz's 1960 book The Professional Soldier, he said in a democracy, military culture must adapt to changes in civilian society and to the changing landscape and technology of war. He argued the gap is narrowed as the military adjusts to the needs and orders of its civilian leaders.
This early debate over the civil-military gap continued until 1973, with the end of the military draft in the United States. After that point, the nation's military became an all-volunteer force, which changed the nature of the armed forces and led to wider gaps between civilian and military cultures. The debate and protests over the Vietnam War renewed public attention and interest in civil-military relations and brought a second wave of research into the nature of the gap. The divisions caused by the war and then the end of the draft caused demographic changes in the military. It was now forced to compete for recruits, or employees, like any other employer. One fear remained from earlier debates over the civil-military gap, that civilian society would be unsympathetic to the military's needs.
Overview
The debate over the civilian-military divide continues to be an issue in the twenty-first century. A third wave of research and debate on the topic began after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. At the time, President George H.W. Bush popularized the political slogan "peace dividend," which referred to a purported economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending. This promised peace dividend led to a debate over changes in America's national security strategy and what that would mean for the future of the armed forces. During the 1990s, some in the academic communities voiced concern about the state of civilian-military relations in the United States. Their concerns primarily focused on the potential emergence of a growing gap between the characteristics, attitudes, and beliefs of military and civilian societies. This concern gained some resonance in policy-making circles, with then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen talking about a chasm developing between the military and civilian worlds.
Much of the debate over the civil-military gap in the early twenty-first century stemmed from an extensive study by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS). Peter D. Feaver, Richard H. Kohn, and their colleagues at the TISS conducted a survey to assess the nature of the civil-military gap. The effort was unique in that it attempted to gain systematic evidence and scientifically grounded insight into the issue. Their team found mixed evidence about the existence of the gap and its implications, but overall, Feaver and Kohn leaned toward the interpretation that the gap existed. Specifically, the pair asserted that the following problems may arise as a result of the growing civil-military gap:
- As public support for the armed forces declines, the military will be less effective.
- In the realm of personnel recruiting and retention, the gap is likely to make problems worse in the future.
- The continuing growth of the gap will lead to an increasing politicization of the nation's military.
Concerns over the civil-military gap were muted in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks that struck the United States on September 11, 2001. However, the underlying issue remained present, and debate over the topic continued through the 2010s and 2020s. There were less than three million individuals in the armed forces in the mid-2010s, and by the mid-2020s, this number reached about 2.1 million, with over 778,000 civilians serving in support roles. Given those numbers, many worried that a growing civilian-military gap could undermine the principle of civilian control of the military. Between 1980 and 2023, the total number of military members declined by 37 percent, declining significantly for the first time after Vietnam and a second time following the Cold War. However, despite the continual decline over decades, in 2024, the military recruited 225,000 people, a 12.5 percent increase from the previous year. Though this was positive, it was over 40,000 recruits short of the year's goal.
Bibliography
Bruneau, Thomas C., et al. The Routledge Handbook of Civil-Military Relations. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2022.
Feaver, Peter. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations. Harvard UP, 2009.
Feaver, Peter, and Richard H. Kohn. Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security. MIT P, 2001.
"How Many People Are in the US Military? A Demographic Overview." USA Facts, 21 Feb. 2024, usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview. Accessed 20 Jan. 2025.
Mattis, Jim, and Kori Schake. Warriors and Citizens: American Views of Our Military. Hoover Press, 2016.
Owens, Mackubin Thomas. US Civil-Military Relations after 9/11: Renegotiating the Civil-Military Bargain. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011.
Rahbek-Clemmensen, Jon, et al. "Conceptualizing the Civil-Military Gap: A Research Note." Armed Forces & Society, vol. 38, no. 4, 2012, pp. 669-78, doi:10.1177/0095327X12456509. Accessed 20 Jan. 2025.
Szayna, Thomas S., et al. "The Civil-Military Gap in the United States: Does It Exist, Why, and Does It Matter?" RAND Corporation, 2007, www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND‗MG379.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan. 2025.
Thompson, Mark. "An Army Apart: The Widening Military-Civilian Gap." Time, 10 Nov. 2011, nation.time.com/2011/11/10/an-army-apart-the-widening-military-civilian-gap. Accessed 20 Jan. 2025.
"2024 Annual Estimate of the Strategic Security Environment." Army War College, 24 July 2024, publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3849628/2024-annual-estimate-of-the-strategic-security-environment. Accessed 20 Jan. 2025.